If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Dr. Jack Burns. Topics: Lunar missions, lunar policy, lunar commerce, public-private partnerships, international lunar policy. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Dr. Jack Burns to the program to discuss lunar policy, public and commercial missions, the international momentum for going to the Moon and more. During the first segment of the 1 hour 23 minute show, Dr. Burns responded to my initial question as to why we have not returned to the Moon since Apollo ended. He provided us with a comprehensive overview going back to the Cold War period, our technology readiness level at the time, the costs involved in going to the Moon, and much more. He also talked about the unique drivers at the time for space, drivers which don’t exist today. We then discussed today’s drivers for both public and private/commercial programs along with today’s economic and technology readiness level. Don’t miss his analysis. Dr. Burns did say (several times during our discussion) that international support for lunar missions, both robotic and human, was growing. He also referred to The Global Exploration Roadmap (www.nasa.gov/pdf/591067main_GER_2011_small_single.pdf) several times during the discussion. Later, lunar exploration was discussed and Dr. Burns talked about scientific drivers and the stepping stone concept. He said the Moon was a crucial stepping stone to other solar system projects and destinations. Listener Jerry sent in a note based on the YouTube video of our guest about using the Moon for the exploration of the cosmos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BrhYOaAkko). Dr. Burns took time to describe his DARE project (The Dark Ages Radio Explorer). For information on this project, see http://lunar.colorado.edu/dare/mission.html. Listeners asked our guest to explain why the lunar farside was so good for communication and various arrays. Don’t miss his explanation. Later in the segment we talked about cislunar space, Orion missions, timelines, and even lunar communication latency. We also talked about Mars missions and at one point our guest said going to Mars without first learning things on the Moon increases risk for the mission and those going to Mars. Doug called with a series of comments, then BJohn asked why lunar landings were so rare (from his perspective).

In the second segment, Catherine asked Dr. Burns for his top three science missions and commercial mission were he in charge of lunar policy. After Dr. Burns responded to Catherine’s question, Connie wanted to know about new theories on how the Moon was created. BJohn asked about the launcher selected for the DARE project plus other lunar related propulsion and primary/secondary payload requirements. I asked Jack about the use of cubesats in lunar missions and just how it important was it for the general public to support a return to the Moon policy. Doug called to take issue with the missions Dr. Burns preferred because they would essentially eat up the budget leaving little or nothing for missions that Doug preferred. This led to a budget and choice discussion, then I chimed in with a minor rant from an economic perspective about using public money better so we did not have to make choices regarding this or that mission or project. I ranted on about the difference in an expense and investment at the federal level. I admitted to this being my space cadet fantasy as I know we are not headed for economic deployment as I wished for in my comments. Don’t miss the final questions of the program and the concluding comments offered by Dr. Burns.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Dr. Burns through his university websites or me.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Dr. Doug Plata. Topics: Achieving Early Earth Independence with space settlements. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Dr. Doug Plata back as our guest to discuss his paper which is on TSS blog for your perusal, “Achieving Early Earth Independence Through ISRU and Sufficient Supply. During the first segment of our 1 hou 45 minute program, Doug told us the genesis of his ideas and concepts culminating in his submitting his paper to the NASA Challenge InnoCentive Challenge (www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933746). After referencing the NASA Challenge, Doug started describing his ideas in detail. Much of what he described he said was summarized in the Introduction of his paper. We talked about both the Moon and Mars but Doug explained that the competition was focused on Mars so he also focused on Mars though he still supports the Moon and cislunar development as the rational and initial starting points. Issues he discussed included supplies, types of potential habitats, the definition of and clarifications for mass independence including defining both self-sufficient and self-sustaining. He also brought up the earth return option and more. BJohn sent in several questions but his initial one asking about becoming 90% Earth independent led to a most interesting discussion. While Doug’s paper does not have page numbers, check out Table 3, “Estimated Equivalent Mass Independence. Doug took us through the critical numbers and his analysis so don’t miss this important discussion.

In the second segment, Doug suggested three rationales for the settlement. One was to push technologies needed for sustainable living in space. The second was the big one according to his perspective and focused on reducing the resupply costs for the settlement. The third one was also big and focused on assuring survival of the human species. He discussed each rational in detail. As part of the discussion, he referenced a space settlement as an insurance policy for humans, he talked about the earth return option, radiation, GCRs, and more. He also showed that by leaving the crew on Mars for an extra year, the mission would be less costly. Listen to his discussion about this and see if you concur with him. Doug was asked about the previous program with Al Globus and LEO settlements, especially over the equator. He said that such settlements, while potentially interesting, cannot be self-sufficient or Earth independent and his focus was on gaining Earth independence. Again, don’t miss this discussion. Gravity, artificial gravity and spin rates were discussed as was the concept of self-sustaining versus self-sufficient for a colony. Doug advocated for using the word colony rather than settlement but I took issue with that, especially if one hopes to communicate with people including Congress outside the space industry. As the show was ending, Paula asked Doug about the fact that space settlers may not want to achieve Earth independence and it seemed his work was formulated around the assumption that everyone wanted Earth independence ASAP. This was a great last question and discussion. Doug provided a good summary of today’s discussion as we closed the show.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Dr. Plata through his websites or me.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Al Globus; Topics: Space settlement in LEO and radiation over the equator. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed back Al Globus to discuss his plan for LEO space settlement about 500 km above the equator to minimize radiation, shielding, and to improve the mass ratios to make settlement easier than in other locations. During the first segment of our 1 hour 49 minute program, Al put forth his hypothesis that radiation over the equator was very light meaning that any space settlement would need minimal shielding or possibly no shielding. This vastly improved the economics of developing and resupplying the settlement given its close proximity to Earth and the lower mass needed for the settlement and transportation. This would be a “free space settlement” meaning it would be in orbit. During this segment and the entire program, Al explained the radiation issues but you should read his paper on the subject, “Space Settlement the Easy Way.” You can find this paper at http://space.alglobus.net/presentations/Easy.pdf. Al spent lots of time explaining the radiation issues and talking about the initial settlements which may not have an economic purpose. Al did go into the technical side of the radiation issues and his analysis for this location so don’t miss what he had to say about it plus as I suggested above, be sure to read his paper. Later in the segment, he brought up space tourism and space hotels as a type of initial space settlement but one that would pave the way for actual settlements in LEO. In the end, Al said that a LEO settlement is an easier way to get started with space settlement but stated many times that even a LEO space settlement above the equator would be challenging. He did get several listener emails, some of which challenged his radiation analysis and the idea that little or no shielding would be necessary. Al was also asked about space exploration but he was very clear that he was focused on space settlement.

In the second segment, we talked space policy, the U.S. congress and even the issue of space debris removal. Marshal called to talk about radiation shelters from solar storms, Alexander wanted to know more about space solar power. Adrian sent in a series of notes challenging Al and using the December 2004 Magnetar event. Al was not familiar with it. I inquired of the listeners to tell us what happened to the ISS during the event. After the show, I got a follow up note from Adrian regarding the event and the ISS: “Thanks to the magnetar’s great distance, the super flare posed no threat to humanity or Earth’s biosphere. The International Space Station was on the opposite side of Earth when the flare hit our planet, but even if the astronauts had faced the full fury of the blast, they would have received a radiation dose less than a dental X-ray. An SGR super flare’s pulse of high-energy radiation could seriously damage a planet’s atmosphere only if it occurred within about 6 light-years, according to Adrian L. Melott (University of Kansas)” See more at:www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-brightest-blast/#sthash.VvmrtqKH.dpuf & www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-brightest-blast. I believe the point Adrian was trying to make was that no shielding even for a LEO settlement above the equator leaves the occupants w/o protection in case of an unexpected radiation related event. To this point, Al spent some time talking about risk and risk taking. Toward the end of the program, Al brought up the subject of space mining, Biosphere 2, and the size of the space station. During the show he also talked about artificial gravity and increased spin rates for people at 4-6 RPMs.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Al through his website, www.alglobus.net.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Robert Kooima. Topics: 3D moon & planetary body imaging and rendering. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Dr. Robert Kooima to the program to discuss his 3D imaging and software work, especially for the Moon and planetary bodies. Visit his website and www.kooima.net, then click on Applications, then click on Panoptic. This will enable you to follow along with our discussion. In the first segment of our 1 hour 22 minute program, Dr. Kooima started out by telling us how he developed the software he uses for his 3D renderings and images. Note that the software is freely downloadable from his website on the Panoptic page. Also, its Open Source and Dr. Kooima is interested in your feedback if you use it. His email address is on most pages of his website. Keep in mind if you do download the software, you still have to download the database & those are very large files as you will hear toward the end of the first segment. Dr. Kooima shared with us his motivation for doing this, then he explained the pixels and resolution and why the object needed to be spherical. Our guest was asked about side effects using 3D including Oculus Rift and here, our guest had much to say, plus he explained many of the problems by helping us to understand human brain perception. Listeners asked about computer power and faster speeds, latency and rover motion.

In the second segment, our guest told us about his YouTube channel and how to find it. He suggested we watch the “LRO & The Real Time 3D video as well as the “Tour of the Moon on the Oculus Rift.” BJohn wanted to know about the ability to image irregularly shaped objects such as Comet 67P. Be sure to listen to what Robert said about this. Other listeners wanted to know the ease of rendering 3D from the Moon or Mars, then someone asked about using all the radar and other data to create a 3D image of the surface of Venus through the clouds. Our guest talked about the complexities of atmospheric rendering and the fact that Moon had much more data available so it was by far the easiest to render. Dr. Kooima then brought up issues revolving the focus of an object as this is very important to the imaging. Another listener wanted to know if the path to this work was through computer science and graphics or astronomy. You might be surprised by his answer. Our guest also mentioned other software available including the USGS Isis Planetary Image Processing Software and the Celestia Planetary Software. near the end, I asked or guest where this field might be in ten years from now. Don’t miss what e said about the future, the time table, even the investment. Don’t miss his closing comments.

Please post your questions/comments on TSS blog above. You can reach our guest through his email address which is on most pages of his website.

Guest: Dr. Charles Limoli. Topics: We discussed space radiation in the context of his paper, “What Happens To Your Brain On The Way To Mars?” Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience. We welcomed Dr. Charles Limoli to the program for this 90 minute discussion on space radiation and astronauts, especially flying in deep space, going to Mars or back to the Moon, evening residing on the Moon or Mars. You can read his paper which has been uploaded to The Space Show blog for this program. During the first segment, Dr. Limoli outlined the basics of his research. Before going deeper into the topic, I asked him several questions about the use of rodents and mice for the experiments, the possible use of other animals, the constraints and limitations of radiation simulation experiments, plus how these radiation experiments and doses differ from humans getting radiation treatment for cancer or other medical problems. We had quite the discussion on rodent brains compared to human brains, animal experiments in general, plus the protocols used in his experiments which were all carried out at Brookhaven. By the way, Dr. Limoli is a space advocate, he has received NASA funding for years, and he and his team have a great interest in radiation issues for human spaceflight. Dr. Limoli then took time to tell us how the experiments were conducted. Some of the discussion is technical so I suggest you read his paper which has been placed on TSS blog. Dr. Limoli went into significant detail to tell us how they conducted the experiments, applied the low dose radiation to the subjects, and how they evaluated the results. Don’t miss his description and analysis of the experiments. He said the changes were subtle measured 6-8 weeks out but he also said future papers may show that the cognitive changes continued to happen over a much longer period of time. In response to one of my questions, he said there was no sign of recovery. The primary changes that were observed and reported in the paper had to do with cognitive impairment which we discussed in detail throughout this program. I asked our guest about age, gender, race, and cultural differences. I also asked if NASA was now doing or might do in the future some genetic screening to find those best suited for a high radiation environment. Space settlement risks were talked about as was childbirth and pregnancy. Dr. Doug from S. California called to talk about GCR shielding. He wanted to inquire about using the stuff on the mission, food, water, supplies, etc. for shielding. He suggested the strategic placement of the stuff to maximize shielding. Dr. Limoli did say this was all factored in but that GCRs are non-directional so they come in from everywhere so such “stuff” shielding would only be partially helpful in protecting against radiation. For now, it would have to remain an unanswered question pending getting more research data. In this discussion, Dr. Limoli did explain the components of GCR and what they do to the body and the brain’s cognitive ability.

In the second segment, we took listener questions including several from our friend Dr. Logan. One such question wanted to focus on how deep you would need to go into the Martian surface to equal the protection of Earth’s radiation shielding. Our guest was not sure of the actual calculation but estimated 4-5 meters. Tim in Boston sent in a note quoting what Dr. Zubrin said about Dr. Limoli’s research project per his critique of the paper published in The Space Review May 11, 2015. Dr. Limoli said that what Dr. Zubrin was saying was wrong regarding the details of the experiment. It was a very interesting discussion so don’t miss it. Rhonda wanted to know what Dr. Limoli would say to Elon Musk were he charged with consulting for Elon for his Mars plan and desired mission. Don’t miss what he said he would tell Elon. Later in the segment, I asked our guest to connect the dots with radiation issues and the other human factors medical conditions. This too proved to be an interesting discussion so don’t miss this one either. Charles was asked to talk in more detail about the observed cognitive changes and the actual tests used to reach their conclusions. In his closing remarks, he stressed how important continued research was and strongly urged listeners to support science research, write our congressmen and women, lobby for and advocate more research as it is the research that will give us more information to mitigate and resolve our spaceflight challenges.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Jim Muncy: Topics: Space Policy, budget issues, company overviews, and more. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Jim Muncy back to the program to discuss current space policy and budget issues before the U.S. Congress, company updates, and much more. During the first segment of our 1 hour 50 minute discussion, Jim provided us with the groundwork for most of our discussion by going back to the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, then the update to it known as the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. He talked about both the House and Senate versions of the NASA and space budget bills and some of the differences between the two bills. One difference which he explained in detail early in the second segment had to do with the learning period which is important for the developing industry. Another difference between the two revolved around extending the ISS commitment to 2024 plus issues relating to BLEO space. When asked if he thought the final bill would be signed or vetoed by the president, he said it was nonpartisan and he did not see problems getting it signed into law. Listeners asked about funding SLS. Much was said about SLS in both segments but one listener asked Jim why so many supported SLS given its shortcomings. Jim explained the mindset of many SLS supporters in congress. As you will hear, SLS is hardly a black or white issue. This discussion led to a related discussion on developing a new rocket engine, the issues involved, the competitors, methane versus other fuel, and more. In particular, he used Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers as an example supporting is analysis of the situation. Jim was asked about the impact of the Falcon 9 failure which led him to address the need for multiple launchers and competition. Later, Alex asked him about his areas of concern regarding the pending budget legislation. He talked about sequestration, spending caps, delays, and the problem with operating on a CR which is likely. This is a lengthy but important discussion so don’t miss it. Before the segment ended, Jim was asked about the lunar lander. Jim then talked about the Flexible Path, Google Lunar XPrize, cislunar space development and Mars. Jim advocated the need for public private partnerships, then he was asked about international partnerships.

In the second segment, we started with an email question from Doug inquiring about the Augustine Commission presenting an option for returning to the Moon with landers developed in a public-private program context. After Jim’s response, I asked him to refer back to a comment he made in the first segment and to explain what was meant by the learning period. This was an important discussion so don’t miss it. As part of his response, he also provided a short overview of the suborbital industry and participants plus the orbital industry. A good portion of this segment focused on the importance of the learning period. Our last question of the evening was from Helen. She asked Jim if it would be beneficial to ask political candidates in the 2016 races space related questions assuming they know nothing about space. Jim supported the idea but he told us all to make the question broader than just what interests us in the space industry. He gave several examples of this. What he said made sense to me so I urge all of you who get a chance to question a 2016 candidate, ask your space question the way Jim suggested.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guests: John Batchelor, Michael Listner, Dr. David Livingston. Topics: U.S. National Space Policy & the next administration. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We do not permit the commercial use of any Space Show program or part thereof, nor do we permit Space Show programs to be edited, placed on YouTube, or other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted in news articles, papers, academic & research work but must be cited or referenced in the proper citation format. Contact Dr. Livingston for questions about our copyright and trademark policies which we do enforce. This program is archived on The Space Show website, podcasting, and blog sites with permission from John Batchelor. Please visit the John Batchelor Show website for more information about this fine program, www.johnbatchelorshow.com. Remember, your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm). For those of you listening to archives on live365.com & rating the programs, please email me the reasons for your rating. This will definitely help improve Space Show programming. Thank you.

John Batchelor and I welcomed back space attorney Michael Listner to the program to discuss the significance of the U.S. National Space Policy. We talked about some of the choices the next administration might have in formulating a new national space policy including the continuation of subsidies to the commercial space industry, to finally take up space debris removal policy for U.S. debris, and even to start formulating policy on space property rights. Michael also discussed the trend toward transparency and confidence building measures which are a product of the Executive Branch as compared to treaties which need approval from the Senate. I asked Michael if he thought we might start seeing policy emerge as to the usage of cubesats plus I asked how human spaceflight might be impacted by a new national space policy.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Dr. Clark Lindsey. Topics: We reviewed current issues and happenings across the full spectrum of the space industry. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Dr. Clark Lindsey back to the program for a wide ranging discussion on space industry news and issues. During the first segment of our 1 hour 47 minute program, Clark started out by talking about the changes over the years in the small satellite industry. He referenced several companies making news such as One World, Spire, Planet Labs, Skybox, Rocket Lab, Firefly, plus others. This brought him to an interesting cubesat discussion. Next up was the Falcon 9 launch failure from a few days ago. He did not have any new information and we are all still waiting for the cause of the mishap to be stated. He did clarify some of the confusion around the Air Force having sent a destruct signal to the Falcon 9. He said such a signal was sent but about 90 seconds after the event. We then talked about other rocket launch failures in the early days of the Arianne, Atlas & Delta history. Clark was asked about policy issues surrounding the RD-180 engine buy, Senator McCain, commercial crew, and congressional leanings at this point in time. Listeners asked him if he thought SpaceX was seriously hurt by the Falcon 9 accident. He said he thought the company was definitely wounded but it was too early to determine how badly the wound might be. He mentioned the Google billion dollar investment in SpaceX, their commercial manifest and more. Joe in Dallas wanted to know how he thought the Falcon Heavy schedule might be altered as a result of the launch failure. Clark talked about other work being carried out by SpaceX plus he offered some ideas on how testing of any new Falcon 9 systems might be integrated into testing other SpaceX projects including the Falcon Heavy. Jack in Boston wanted to know if Clark had any information on Virgin Galactic. Clark talked about XCOR in his answer and said the companies would likely be adopting a very slow go time table to assure no further mishaps.

In the second segment, we started discussing Clark’s slide presentation on the satellite industry per his talk at Space Access 2015. You can find these slides on The Space Show blog post for this program as I uploaded them to the blog with Clark’s permission. As you will hear later in this segment, we got sidetracked by listener questions and calls so Clark did not get to finish going through the slide presentation so I urge you to view the slides on your own as they certainly clarify the commercial markets and more for many of the satellite markets and uses. Earlier in the segment, Clark did talk about the GEO communication market, also the small satellite market for both LEO and MEO. He was optimistic that commercial companies will start to emerge to address the launch market issues for the small satellites. Clark did talk about the market for these satellites for tracking maritime shipping. He has a special slide illustrating this but from what Clark said, it sounds like a potentially very lucrative market to exploit. Clark fielded some questions about the legal and regulator regime for commercial space and said that not only was the technology pushing the frontiers of development, so were the space law and regulatory issues pushing the frontier for moving the industry forward. He used space debris removal as an example. Tim from Brooklyn sent in a note asking about space tugs and Falcon Heavy which was followed by a good discussion on SLS, space tugs, fuel depots, and one’s space vision for the future as SLS John called in to talk SLS and more with Clark. Tim wanted to know just what we could do today and over the next 5 years with a space tug and the Falcon Heavy. Don’t miss what Clark had to say in response to this question. As we neared the end of the program, Clark provided a sort of short rocket industry overview for us, he talked deep space rocketry, & cost effective SpaceX manufacturing processes. He quickly summarized several of his slides that we did not have time to discuss, then we both offered summary statements about the positive direction commercial space has been going in recent years, despite setbacks, with both of us believing the growth and progress will continue.

Please post your comments/Questions for Dr. Clark Lindsey on TSS blog above. You can reach Clark through his website or me.

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest: Brent Sherwood; Topics: NASA Discovery Missions, planetary exploration and more. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Brent Sherwood back to the show to discuss NASA planetary science missions and in particular the Discovery class missions. During our nearly two hour discussion without a break, Brent started out by telling us how NASA selects Discovery class missions. He talked about the two kinds of science but focused on the Discovery missions which have a $500 million budget not including launch or operating costs. He said it was open season on the solar system other than the sun or Earth as they were covered by other NASA programs. In speaking about the history of Discovery missions, he named a few that we are all familiar with such as Kepler, Grail, Deep Impact, Stardust, the Phoenix Mission, Dawn and the upcoming Insight Mission to Mars. Brent then explained the proposed missions under the auspices of his team. These proposed missions include VERITAS, BASiX, CORE, Pandora, Proteus, Psyche, Kuiper, and ELF. Brent explained each proposed mission to us, talked about the P.I. for each mission, and the science to be gained from the mission. Listeners had many questions for him including how the principal investigator (PI) was selected. Brent explained the process, where the PIs come from, how a mission is proposed, is it coming from a university or academic setting, has it been proposed before, or is it coming from JPL or another NASA center or the Applied Physics Lab (APL). Brent was clear that Discovery missions, given their limited resources, were not about developing and proving out new technology so in answer to my question about the TRL of completing these missions, he said they were all coming in with very high TRLs though the missions sound very futuristic, even bordering on science fiction. As for timelines, Discovery missions approved now would fly in 2021 so they have about a six year time frame to be developed and flown. In response to questions, our guest addressed this six year time line in some detail. All of these missions sounded very exciting but as Brent said, it is a very competitive process and only one or two if any of them may be selected as other teams are proposing their Discovery projects as well and they are equally exciting. Later in the segment, Brent was asked about the choice of launch vehicle for each project. This was a very interesting discussion, don’t miss it as our guest explained in detail the role of the PI regarding the launch vehicle and how NASA actually selects a rocket for the mission. In response to BJohn’s question about launch costs, they certainly factor into the mission planning. Doug asked a question about the Photos-Deimos mission and if the mission could identify a favorable small crater which could later be the site for a covered habitat and if it could identify frozen volatiles in the polar craters of those moons if they exist. Brent said it might have such capabilities but that these missions only do the work specific to their actual project. He had more to say on this so don’t miss all his comments. BJohn asked why not a Uranus mission. Brent said Uranus was too far out and too costly for a Discovery class project. Near the end of the segment, BJohn also asked about the importance of miniaturization now and for the future with NASA and these missions. Brent said it was very important and then updated us on all the cubesat opportunities and uses being integrated into NASA missions. He spoke about the significance of cubesats for several minutes so don’t miss what he had to say about them. Doug asked a question about realizing economic value from these missions or at least what was the rationalization behind these purely science missions. Brent provided an excellent answer to Doug’s questions so don’t miss it. We ended the show after Brent’s response. See what you think of it and post your comments on TSS blog. Doug sent in a final note saying “I agree with his answer re: the value of science. I believe that it is worth a certain amount of our money to increase our knowledge for its own value.”

Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can reach Brent Sherwood through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.